Razzak vs Sh. Dharmender Singh & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5619 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CM(M) No. 992/2014 & CM 18242/14 & Caveat 979/14

%                                                        10th November, 2014

RAZZAK                                                   ...... Petitioner
                             Through:      None.


                             VERSUS

SH. DHARMENDER SINGH & ANR.             ...... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. S.K.Verma, Adv. for R-1

                                           Mr. Salim Malik, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

petitioner and who was the applicant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order of the trial court dated 15.9.2014 by

which the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner/applicant under

Order I Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the subject suit for possession filed by the

respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff in the suit against the respondent no.2

herein/defendant in the suit cannot be converted into a title suit between the

applicant and respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff.

2.             The subject suit is a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent,

CMM 992/2014                                                                       Page 1 of 2
 recovery of mesne profits etc in which respondent no.1/plaintiff claims to be the

owner of the suit property and accordingly seeks possession from the respondent

no.2/tenant/defendant.

3.             Trial court has rightly observed that the existing suit which is a suit

between a person who claims to be a landlord namely the respondent no.1 herein

and against his tenant who is respondent no.2 herein, cannot be taken on an off-

tangent to prove inter se title disputes between the petitioner/applicant and the

respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff.     Trial court has rightly observed that if the

petitioner/applicant wants to claim title, he is entitled to and can always file an

independent suit claiming the title in which he can include the parties to the

present suit ie respondent nos.1 and 2 herein as parties and in which suit the claim

of the applicant/petitioner would be decided. Of course, any of the parties either in

the present suit or in the suit which can be filed by the petitioner can in accordance

with law seek appropriate interim orders with respect to protection of their rights.

4.             I therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned

order in exercise of my extraordinary and discretionary powers under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

5.             Dismissed.




NOVEMBER 10, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib